This week, Commonwealth Fusion Systems revealed that it has secured another client for its inaugural commercial fusion power facility, located in Virginia. Eni, among the largest oil and gas corporations globally, has finalized a billion-dollar agreement to purchase electricity from this establishment.
A minor detail? That reactor hasn’t been constructed yet. Nor has the smaller reactor that Commonwealth is constructing first to prove that its tokamak design can function as planned.
This is a peculiar time in fusion. Investors are injecting billions into the sector to create power plants, and some firms are even entering into substantial contracts to acquire electricity from those still-nonexistent facilities. All of this occurs before companies have successfully finished a functioning reactor capable of generating electricity. Developing a new technology requires funds, but all this investment might create distorted expectations.
Nearly three years ago, the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory achieved a significant milestone for fusion energy. With the assistance of the world’s most powerful lasers, researchers heated a fuel pellet to 100 million °C. Hydrogen atoms within that fuel fused together, producing more energy than the lasers supplied.
This was a transformative moment for the atmosphere surrounding fusion. The NIF experiment conclusively demonstrated that a fusion reactor could produce net energy. Models from plasma physicists had indicated that it should be feasible, but witnessing it validated in practice was another matter.
However, in some aspects, the NIF outcomes didn’t fundamentally alter much for commercial fusion. The facility’s lasers consumed an extraordinary amount of energy, the arrangement was extremely complex, and the entire process lasted only a brief moment. To operate a fusion power plant, achieving net energy is essential, but it’s equally important to maintain that output at a reasonably consistent rate and—importantly—do so affordably.
Following the NIF news, the spotlight turned towards companies like Commonwealth, Helion, and Zap Energy. Who would be the first to showcase this milestone with a more commercially viable reactor? Or better yet, who would be the first to launch a power plant into operation?
As of now, the response is none of them.
To be fair, numerous fusion enterprises have made technological advancements. Commonwealth has developed and evaluated its high-temperature superconducting magnets and released studies regarding that progress. Zap Energy accomplished three hours of uninterrupted operation in its test system, a achievement confirmed by the US Department of Energy. Helion initiated construction of its power plant in Washington this past July. (Not to mention, China boasts a flourishing, publicly funded fusion sector.)
These are all significant milestones, and these and other companies have experienced countless more. However, as Ed Morse, a nuclear engineering professor at Berkeley, articulated to me: “They don’t possess a reactor.” (He was specifically addressing Commonwealth, but the same applies to the others as well.)
Nonetheless, the funding continues to flow. Commonwealth secured over $800 million in investments earlier this year. Now, it has two significant clients committed to purchasing electricity from this forthcoming power facility.
Why invest in electricity from a reactor that is presently little more than concepts on paper? From the viewpoint of these particular prospective buyers, such agreements can offer a mutually beneficial situation, states Adam Stein, nuclear energy innovation director at the Breakthrough Institute.
By expressing confidence in Commonwealth, Eni could assist the fusion startup in acquiring the necessary capital to truly construct its facility. The company is also making a direct investment in Commonwealth, giving it a vested interest in its success. Securing a favorable rate on the capital required to build the plant might ultimately lead to cheaper electricity for Eni, Stein remarks.
Ultimately, fusion requires substantial funding. If fossil fuel companies and tech leaders are willing to contribute, that’s even better. One concern I harbor, however, is how external observers interpret these substantial commitments.
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright has been vocal about his backing for fusion and his anticipations for the technology. Earlier this month, he told the BBC that it would soon supply energy to the world.
He’s certainly not the initial individual with grand aspirations for fusion, and it indeed is an exciting technology. Nevertheless, despite astonishing financial achievements, this industry is still in its formative stages.
And while Wright lauds fusion, the Trump administration is cutting funding for other energy technologies, such as wind and solar, while disseminating misinformation regarding their safety, cost, and efficiency.
To accommodate the increasing electricity demand and reduce emissions from the power sector, we will require a diverse array of technologies. Relying solely on an unproven energy technology poses a risk and distraction when numerous viable options are readily available.
This article originates from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.
